Wednesday, September 2, 2015

JUST SAY NO TO SSPEED RICE MID-BAY GATE AND CENTENNIAL GATE AND YES TO TAMU ORIGINAL IKE DIKE



Greetings Family, Friends, and Neighbors of the Galveston Bay Communities, East of SH 146, from La Porte to Sunny San Leon, and everyone in-between.

 

after going over this 3rd part SSPEED RICE DIKE MID-BAY GATE proposal, I find this attempt at the same thing, futile.

 

not no, but HELL NO!

 

SSPEED RICE DIKE MID-BAY GATE

 


 

read and notice map drawing on page 25;

 


 

more smoke and mirrors folks, they are going to shove this Rice SSpeed dike, mid-bay gate, centennial gate, Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area, call it what ever you want, but they will shove it all down our throats one way or the other, and change this area as you have never seen it before, just to protect big oil and the petro chemical complex north of Fred Harman bridge, change that you do not want. I bet that’s the first thing they build is that centennial gate.

 

I don’t want to depend on oyster reefs and toxic dredge materials to protect us from the next big one.

 

your screwing up Galveston bay with this continued dredging of the Houston Ship Channel and materials there from used for islands, and then calling them and environmental marvel. I am not impressed.

 

this mid-bay gate plan still has the raising of SH 146 behind us, that would still wall off anyone east of SH 146.

 

The mid-bay gate and Centennial Gate, will leave everyone east of SH 146 as part of the berm levee protection system, protecting everyone west of SH 146, you will be part of that protection, washed up along side of the raised SH 146 as the backstop, and all those new developments across and west of SH 146 will be protected, but they will still use our old washed out homesteads, to make way for recreation, with this mid-bay gate proposal, same as what was originally proposed in the Rice Dike Proposal. WE ARE STILL COLLATERAL DAMAGE. 

 

the mid-bay gate proposal,  this idea will do nothing but screw this area up along east of SH 146, and Galveston Bay with it.

 

The mid-bay gate system is a band-aid approach that will not work for anyone East of SH 146, and I doubt it will work for Galveston Bay.

 

JUST SAY NO to the mid-bay gate plan, and NO to the Rise SSpeed dike Centennial Gate plan.

 

YES to the original TAMU Ike Dike plan ! The Ike Dike will protect us all as much as it can.

 

WE WANT THE IKE DIKE THAT WAS FIRST PROPOSED, it’s the most logical proposal.

 

This Rice SSpeed mid-bay, Centennial Gate plan, may look pretty on paper, but that dog still don’t hunt with me.

 

OUR HOMESTEADS WILL NOT BE COLLATERAL DAMAGE FOR THE BIG PETRO CHEMICAL NORTH OF FRED HARTMAN BRIDGE, just to make way for recreational parks and big money developers to move back in and build on our homesteads, your not going to put lipstick on this pig and get me to dance with her. 

 

That’s my opinion.

 

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

 

IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA

 


 

Sunday, April 5, 2015

 

Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?

 


 

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

 

GALVESTON BAY REPORT CARD 2015

 


 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

 

IKE DIKE VS RICE DIKE PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF TAMU IKE DIKE

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 


 

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

 
Ike Dike Scientist Professor William Merrell sees NO chance of compromise !
 
BRAVO!!! Legislators want quick action on Ike Dike
 
 
Friday, December 6, 2013
 
IKE DIKE TAMU VS Rice SSPEED Dike Centennial gate from Hell
 
 
 
Sunday, December 9, 2012
 
 
*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA


 
 

Houston $3 billion floodgate proposed for Galveston Bay Land commissioner joins academics in urging action to guard from storms

 

By Eric Berger

 

September 1, 2015 Updated: September 1, 2015 12:02am

 

Academic leaders have long beseeched government officials to learn from the damage caused by Hurricane Ike in 2008 and harden the upper Texas coast against future threats.

 

Finally, on Monday, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush announced an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the feasibility of projects to limit flood and storm surge damage.

 

"It is time to take action," said Bush, who came into office in January. "This has been a priority of mine since the campaign."

 

That effort will build upon several previous studies, including one to be released Tuesday, which have found that a gate system in Galveston Bay, costing less than $3 billion, could provide protection from future hurricanes for $37 billion in chemical and other facilities along the Houston Ship Channel, as well as$9 billion in residential property.

 

These academic studies, funded by the Houston Endowment and managed by academic leaders from Rice University, the University of Houston, Texas A&M University at Galveston and other institutions, have presented a range of options to protect the coast.

 

*** The latest possibility calls for building a floodgate across the Ship Channel near San Leon.

 

*** This "mid-bay" gate would be tied to an extensive network of man-made reefs and island berms, most of which already exist, to safeguard not only industry along the Ship Channel but also homes in rapidly developing areas such as League City along the west side of Galveston Bay.

 

But while the academic community has built a case for action in the wake of Hurricane Ike, no public officials had taken up their cause despite the inevitability of a future strike.

 

Houston's mayor was lukewarm, while county officials simply weren't interested. The same went for state officials until Monday's announcement by Bush.

 

"What we haven't had is one or two champions," said Phil Bedient, director of Rice University's Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center.

 

It's likely no officials have stepped up because they don't want to foot the bill for a proactive project, which is why Bedient and other academic leaders welcome the intervention of Bush.

 

Working with the Army Corps of Engineers, Bedient said, a state leader like Bush could build a coalition that includes contributions from industry as well as local, state and federal governments.

 

Bush said he recognizes the challenges of trying to be proactive - rather than reactive - in government, and the difficulty of convincing all of Texas that a coastal project will benefit the whole state. However, he said, one-quarter of Texans live along the coast, and the state also has one-quarter of the nation's refining capacity.

 

He said the General Land Office, with its responsibility for submerged lands, oil spill response and coastal issues, is the best suited agency to lead the effort.

 

Since Hurricane Ike and its devastating surge, the academic community has offered several solutions to preventing a worst-case scenario, in which a hurricane makes landfall south of Galveston and pushes a massive wall of water into Galveston Bay.

 

Such a surge would inundate many homes in the Clear Lake area as well as the chemical industry along the Ship Channel.

 

Shortly after Hurricane Ike, William Merrell, a Texas A&M-Galveston oceanographer, proposed the "Ike Dike," a series of levees and gates to protect Galveston Island and the entire Galveston Bay area.

 

But such a system could cost as much as $10 billion, and environmentalists worried it would damage the Galveston Bay ecosystem.

 

So Bedient, along with Houston environmental lawyer Jim Blackburn and others, proposed a "Centennial Gate" at the mouth of the Ship Channel. This project, estimated to cost about $2.8 billion, would have protected the chemical industry but not many residential areas.

 

Now, in their latest analysis, Bedient and Blackburn offered a third option, the mid-bay gate, which would cost about as much as the Centennial Gate but also protects the heavily developed western side of Galveston Bay.

 


 

Blackburn said this alternative was developed after concerns were raised about the Centennial Gate not mitigating risk for residential areas in Clear Lake.

 

"We think this is a major step forward in terms of the discussion on what to do," Blackburn said.

 

Over the next year the academic researchers will finalize reports on the local options, including environmental impacts.

 

With the intervention of Bush and the Army Corps, it's now possible those reports will be more than academic.

 

Eric Berger

 

Science Writer, Houston Chronicle

 


 

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

 

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:16 PM

 


 

Subject: re-Protecting the Gulf Coast matter of national security Congressman Randy Weber

 

Greetings Galveston Daily News et al,

 

I wish to kindly submit the following, in reply to ;

 

re-Protecting the Gulf Coast matter of national security Congressman Randy Weber GDN Thursday August 27, 2015. ...

 

so soon some forget. New Orleans survived Hurricane Katrina, what New Orleans did not survive was the Army Corp of Eng. and the Levee failures there from, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know, if you build a town in the bottom of a bowl, your going to have problems. we all have known since Hurricanes Katrina and Ike and before, that this community needs a storm wall at the coast to protect us all, thus, the TAMU Ike Dike was proposed to protect all of Galveston Bay, and everyone inside of it. Since then, corporate politics have taken the forefront, and science was sent to the rear of the bus. now it seems that all anyone is interested in is protecting Houston and the Petro Chemical Ship Channel, and all some of us have become is collateral damage, as those of us living east of state highway 146 from Texas City to La Porte, and everyone in-between. it’s been a decade since Katrina and about 7 years or so since Ike, and here we still sit, waiting for another study, and you can see the writing on the wall, the only thing they are waiting on is a study that only protects the Houston Ship study and Houston, yet hangs everyone out to dry east of State Hwy 146, to make way for a tourist recreational land on our old homesteads. those plans my fine neighbors and friends are already in the drawings, and that’s no joke. why should any of us pay to protect only the petro and chemical plants, with something that could completely wash us away? Personally, if there cannot be a IKE Dike that protects all of us, then I would rather have no Dike at al, if the only other alternative was the SSPEED Rice Dike Centennial Gate at Fred Harman Bridge, and or the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). we all may as well write our social security numbers on our arms now, because damming up the North End of Galveston bay, and surrounding Bayous and inlets, with the SSPEED Rice Dike proposal will only cause tsunami’s for surrounding coastal communities. we saw that during Hurricane Ike, without the North End of Galveston bay being dammed up. so, my final question, if the SSPEED Rice Dike is put forth, that only protects the Houston Ship Channel Petro Chemical complex’s, and by it’s own construction assuredly puts all of our lives at a much higher risk that live around the adjacent shoreline communities, and the Ike Dike which would protect us all is tabled, will it then be Rice University, the big petro chemical oil machine, the Port of Houston, the GLO and the Army Corp of Eng. be responsible for killing all those that were left as collateral damage living on and around the adjacent shore lines of Galveston Bay when the next big one hits? You can blame stupid on a Hurricane. ...

 

*** Furthermore, this proposal leaves waterfront properties and communities east of SH- 146 vulnerable; however, it maintains the possibility of waterfront recreation and other environmental and natural coastal features.

 

page 11, the building and writing off of all surrounding coastal communities for a new recreational tourist attraction $$$

 


 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

 

IKE DIKE VS RICE DIKE PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF TAMU IKE DIKE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 


 

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

 

*** Ike Dike Scientist Professor William Merrell sees NO chance of compromise !

 


 

Monday, April 15, 2013

 

Hurricane Ike: 5 Years Later Conference Rice Dike Proposal September 24-25, 2013

 


 

Sunday, June 9, 2013

 

RICE DIKE AND IKE DIKE ARE RIVALS NO MORE, AND HAS BACKED OFF THE PROPOSAL OF A 20-MILE 25 FOOT LEVEE ALONG SH 146

 


 

Monday, November 18, 2013

 

Is your community just collateral damage? RICE DIKE VS IKE DIKE

 


 

Friday, December 6, 2013

 

IKE DIKE TAMU VS Rice SSPEED Dike Centennial gate from Hell

 


 

October 10, 2012

 

IKE DIKE PROPOSED BY RICE UNIVERSITY hangs our Bayshore communities out to dry, IN 25 FEET OF WATER, to make way for WATERFRONT RECREATION $$$

 


 

Sunday, December 9, 2012

 

*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES

 


 

Hurricane Ike here is a view from our pier back to the garage apartment, the garage, and the main house, the day before Hurricane Ike. video scans down shoreline in front of your house James and Tammy, and then, about halfway through the video, after a big wave came crashing over the top of the hill, I went in, still well before landfall of Ike, the pier went 12 hours before Ike made landfall, or there abouts. then the video picks of the day after. HURRICANE IKE bonnie and terry day before and the day after IKE Bacliff 77518

 


 

HURRICANE IKE Bacliff, two days later, see a video from our neighbors yard, looking back to our gutted out apartment ‘mother-in-laws-house’ and garage, (see how high tide still is along Bacliff shoreline), and the big rocks in neighbors backyard and pool.

 


 

say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...

 


 

Sunday, April 5, 2015

 

Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?

 


 


 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 flounder9@verizon.net.

 

 

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

GALVESTON BAY REPORT CARD 2015

GALVESTON BAY REPORT CARD

 

Overall Health of the Bay Galveston Bay is resilient, but faces an uncertain future. The Bay’s watershed is home to the fourth- and ninth-largest cities in the U.S., Houston and Dallas. It’s also home to three ports, and remains a hub for the manufacturing and refining of chemicals and petroleum products. But people, industry, and commerce often come with environmental challenges. Galveston Bay’s most significant problems are tied to pollution, declines in habitat acreage, and to the impacts of climate change, like sea level rise.

 

That Galveston Bay could receive C for overall health despite facing these monumental issues shows how resilient it is. It offers hope that we can continue to make changes in the way we live to lessen the negative impact on water quality, habitat like wetlands and seagrasses, and wildlife.

 

 Galveston Bay is resilient, but faces an uncertain future. The Bay’s watershed is home to the fourth- and ninth-largest cities in the U.S., Houston and Dallas. It’s also home to three of chemicals and petroleum products. But people, industry, and commerce often come with environmental challenges. declines in habitat acreage, and to the impacts of climate change, like sea level rise.

 

That Galveston Bay could receive C for overall health despite change our negative impact on water quality, wetlands, seagrasses, and wildlife. But a healthier Galveston Bay is in everyone’s interest. (About the grade: The combined GPA for all six categories together is a 2.1, which registers in the low C range. Unfortunately, the combined grade does not include grades for three of our indicators: Toxics in Sediment, Litter and Trash, and Oyster Reef Acreage* - There was not enough data available on these indicators to include them in the overall grade. We hope you will join us in encouraging local, state, and national leaders to pass legislation, and provide funding, that will improve monitoring and address these issues.

 

* Oyster reef habitat has been monitored and the data is being processed. We hope to be able to include current data in 2016.

 

2015 Galveston Bay Report Card

 

About the Bay

 

Galveston Bay is Texas’ largest bay, covering about 600 square miles. The Galveston Bay watershed — the area of land that drains into a given body of water — is about 24,000 square miles. It stretches northward from the Houston metropolitan area, up the Trinity River basin, and past the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Half the population of Texas currently lives in the Galveston Bay watershed. The Bay’s urbanized, industrialized, and agricultural setting poses unique challenges for water quality, habitat protection, and resource conservation. If you live, work, or go to school in the Galveston Bay Watershed, you can find your local watershed now.

 

Galveston Bay is, by definition, an estuary – a semi-enclosed coastal body of water that has a free connection with the open sea. Within an estuary, seawater mixes with freshwater from the land. In the case of Galveston Bay, it is where freshwater from the Trinity and San Jacinto rivers and the extensive bayous and creeks of the Houston-Galveston region mix with the saltwater of the Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries are among the most productive ecosystems in the world. They are home to a huge amount of plant and animal life, and can produce large harvests of recreational and commercial fish and shellfish.

 

People are drawn to the water – and for good reason. Galveston Bay and the habitats within its watershed provide many benefits to society, including:

 

• Fisheries/seafood.

 

• Water quality improvement.

 

• Erosion, flood, and storm protection.

 

• Regulation of local climate.

 

• Aesthetics and recreational opportunities such as swimming, boating, and bird watching.

 

Ensuring a healthy future for Galveston Bay is ensuring that future generations can enjoy a safe place to not only live, but also swim, boat, and fish.

 

About the Project

 

The Galveston Bay Report Card is a citizen-driven, scientific analysis of the health of Galveston Bay. Supported by a grant from Houston Endowment and implemented by the Galveston Bay Foundation and the Houston Advanced Research Center, the report card’s goal is to engage community members in meaningful discussion about Bay health topics. The report card is also designed to inspire people to take actions that protect and preserve the Bay. We plan to update the report annually.

 

Through a series of surveys and interactive presentations, six topic categories were identified by the Galveston Bay Foundation as health topics of interest to the public in the fall of 2014: Water Quality, Pollution Events & Sources, Wildlife, Habitat, Human Health Risks, and Coastal Change. Scientists from the Houston Advanced Research Center then analyzed data and trends for 19 indicators. What has emerged is a compelling story about Galveston Bay, its challenges, opportunities, and greatest needs. Each indicator features easy-to-understand grades, similar to the grades you would find in a school report card. These indicators show specific ways you can help the Bay, as well as data-driven infographics, additional resources, and downloadable full reports with expanded content. There is also specific data on each indicator.

 

How We Grade

 

It is not easy to measure how “healthy” a bay system is. Estuaries are extremely dynamic environments that change by the minute. It is not always clear how much stress a particular component of the bay can take before it begins to deteriorate, how fast it may deteriorate, or if recovery after deterioration is even possible. The way an individual defines a “healthy” bay is often related to how we, as humans, value the services that the system provides us, such as seafood harvests, clean water for drinking and playing, and habitat that protects and stabilizes shorelines.

 

The goal of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 is to make the nation’s waters swimmable and fishable. That goal was our guideline in measuring the indicators for this report card. In this project, the Bay’s health is perceived as a question of sustainability and resiliency: Do the indicator trends portray a Bay that will continue to provide recreation, food, clean water, and protection from storms?

 

Instead of trying to apply a universal grading methodology to such a variety of Bay indicators, some degree of best professional judgment was used to determine overall category grades and indicator grading scales. A detailed explanation outlines how grades were calculated and when grading relied heavily on best professional judgment based on available data. This is disclosed in the downloadable PDFs for each indicator. Letter grades correspond to a 4.0 grade point average scale, and are accompanied by descriptors ranging from “Excellent” to “Critical.”

 

CONTACT US

 

Working Together For a Healthy Bay

 

As Texans and residents of the Galveston Bay watershed, we all carry the responsibility of protecting and preserving the Bay for future generations. The Bay is at the heart of immense ecological and economic productivity. It’s also a special place to many people who enjoy its views, tranquility, and recreational opportunities. The indicators selected for this report represent a diverse cross-section of Bay features, but they are not intended to be all-encompassing. We have already identified a few topics for future indicator expansion: water clarity, chlorophyll-a concentrations (an indicator of productivity at the base of the food chain), marine mammals and reptiles, land use/ development, harmful algal blooms, invasive species, and species range expansions. We welcome your comments, suggestions and ideas to improve the report card, which we plan to update annually. A healthy environment is good for the communities we live, work, and play in. So please share this report with your family and friends. We encourage you to ask questions and seek innovative solutions to challenging environmental issue. Galveston Bay Foundation

 

Anja Borski Scott Jones

 

281-332-3381 Ext. 223 281-332-3381 Ext. 209

 

aborski@galvbay.org sjones@galvbay.org

 

Houston Advanced Research Center

 

Erin Kinney Lisa Gonzalez

 

281-364-6040 281-364-6044

 

ekinney@HARCresearch.org lgonzalez@HARCresearch.org

 


 

 

Greetings Neighbors, Friends, Family of the unincorporated areas of Galveston Bay, San Leon, Bacliff, Bayview, and Galveston Bay Foundation et al.

 

Many thanks to the Galveston Bay et al for this report, no matter how watered down it might have been.

 

Myself, Steve Hoyland et al at the Seabreeze news, and others, have been saying this for years and trying to get something done, to save Galveston Bay and adjacent Bayous.

 

it’s time we all step up to the plate.

 

I would kindly like to address something that has concerned me for a long time, but I have not said anything. today, I break my silence. it might not be too politically correct, but neither am i.

 

I would like to address what I see are pigs, that squalor in their own feces in our communtiy, and then want you to squalor right along with them. I am tired of the pigs that live in our area, that think it’s o.k. to crap where they sleep, and then they want to crap on you. I am tired of people living and or coming here and trashing our neighborhoods. it happens weekly in Bacliff. people driving around dumping their trash in the ditch on the next block, or around the corner. people that might take their trash (or not) to the side of the road in a bag or box, no can, dogs get in it, or wind blows it down the road, then nobody does nothing. it’s the old ‘oh it’s not mine now that it’s not in my yard’ mentality. just last week, one of the lawn yard crews that work Bayshore dr. dumped their bagged up grass clippings on the side of the road. also, not too long ago, two heavy bags of some very nasty, and very dead dumped, not sure what it was, I did not look, just wheeled our cans over there, and rolled what ever it was into the cans again, and let our garbage pick up pick it up, this is not the first time, this nastiness happens all the time in Bacliff. I love Bacliff, and I love the Bayside community, but there are some nasty ass people that live here and pollute our communities on a weekly basis, and there is no excuse, I don’t care how much money you have or not. I watch a very well off family take their tree limbs down and put them on the pier, so the wind can blow them in, that way, they did not pollute Galveston bay, and they feel good about it. really. some just ignore their own ditches, toys, cars, boats, trash, piles of whatever, yards flood, and then they go screaming to the county and complaining it will not drain. look, I know the majority of us are not pigs, but you all know what and whom I speak of, and you know where they live. something else I noticed, for the last year, I have watch a builder next to us, trash our neighborhood regularly with their building materials waste. I have posted photos and complained. Million dollar plus home, and for a year during construction, I have watched this builder trash not only our neighborhood, but Galveston Bay as well, and the owners know it. EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN THOSE DITCHES EVENTUALLY WINDS UP IN GALVESTON BAY. to the pigs I speak of, clean your shit up. everybody out there should stand up and be heard when you see this. get a license plate number, take photos, take videos, call the sheriff, enough is enough. we are setting up better cameras that will pick up license plate numbers to those that trash around us and across the street. we will not hesitate. and that’s why we voted recently for the MUD trash pickup in Bacliff. I think this might help alleviate some of the free loaders that live around our communities and think it’s up to us, to keep their crap cleaned up. ...just saying, this is our home, and we are tired of watching other people crap all over us with their trash, you should be tired of this too. ...PLEASE HELP SAVE GALVESTON BAY AND OUR COMMUNITY!

 

CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ

 

RN Number:

 

RN100890235

 

Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 


 

Singeltary Submission;

 

Greetings TCEQ et al,

 

I kindly wish to submit my strong opposition for any permit for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000, to allow any treated or non-treated waste water, or anything else, to be allowed to be discharged into the Dickinson Bayou watershed or nearby locations adjacent to Dickinson Bay, inside of Galveston bay. The Public needs to be able to comment on this, and should. The Dickinson Bayou watershed has been so strained environmentally due to many reasons over the past decades, some reasons include Livestock, Pets, faulty septic systems, agricultural activities, urban run-off and what all that contains, pesticide runoff, waste water treatment plants, just to name a few, but now we have an industrial complex that wants to grow at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, a Bayou that already has studies that show it’s very sluggish in terms of tidal movement, and a Bayou that has consistently been in trouble, year after year after decade. In my opinion, I believe one of the main reasons that causes this, besides all the pollution, is the fact Dickinson Bayou needs to, should have been dredged, with a continuous dredge maintained from inside the mouth, and past the old grave yard, across those flats, on up until Dickinson Bayou gets deep, all the way to the ship channel. The water quality in Dickinson Bayou, has been bad for some time due to little tidal movement. Just very recently, the Houston Chronicle ran an article on a workshop (see below in reference materials) on how to improve Dickinson Bayou due to unacceptably high levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. so why would TCEQ or anyone allow such a permit to throw more fuel to the fire? the old spillway inlet at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, and outlet over on the Bacliff Side, is and has been dead in the water years and years, with no movement through there to help oxygenate the water, we have had numerous fish kills, with one massive flounder kill. why can the ship channel have a continuous life time dredge for the tanker traffic, but yet never dredge Dickinson Bayou, when the Army Corp of Eng said long ago that this needed to be done to maintain a healthy Bayou? what are we waiting on? Via the FOIA, I received the HL&P construction permits back in the 60’s, and the dredging that the Army Corp of engineers said would come and be maintained constantly. That never happened. This constant maintaining of a dredge was to be done all the way to the ship channel, to prevent just what has happened, and it says so in the permit. see permit PDF in my reference materials below. Until Dickinson Bayou is dredged out and all the way to the ship channel so Dickinson Bayou can breath again, anything else in my opinion will be futile. with no changes to the plan to address the issue of dredging Dickinson Bayou to address the tidal flow issues, and proper flushing of Dickinson Bayou, all your going to have is a toilet that does not flush properly, that our children have been playing and swimming in, and consuming the seafood there from. some kind of tourist attraction, welcome to the Toilet Bowl.

 

I strongly protest, and strongly object, in totality, to Permit No.: WQ0004086000 for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ RN Number: RN100890235, please deny this permit. ...

 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas 77518

 

REFERENCE

 

ENFORCEMENT FOR CLEAN HARBORS

 

Item 35

 

Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E.

 

Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

 


 


 


 


 

Item 35 Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (Jessica Schildwachter, Candy Garrett) Approve the Agreed Order. ZC/TB; all agree.

 


 


 

An agreed order was entered regarding Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc., Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E on April 1, 2015, assessing $234 in administrative penalties with $234 deferred.

 


 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. previous comment

 

Response to Public Comments Eight TMDLs for Indicator Bacteria in Dickinson Bayou and Three Tidal Tributaries (Segments 1103 and 1104)

 

November 12, 2013

 

Tracking Number

 

Date Received

 

Affiliation of Commenter

 

Request or Comment

 

Summary of TCEQ Action or Explanation

 

001_01

 

004_04

 

08/30/2013

 

09/12/2013

 

Terry Singeltary (written)

 

Arlette Baudat

 

(oral)

 

The TCEQ efforts to bring back quality water, instead of polluted water to the Dickinson Bayou and its Tributaries, are greatly appreciated. However, I think it all will be futile, if Dickinson Bayou is not dredged out to where the water can flow freely with the tidal movements. I believe that due to Dickinson Bayou not being dredged and maintained properly, to allow for a maximum flow, by Houston Lighting and Power Co. (HL&P) is/was a cause to a great many of our problems in Dickinson Bayou, and surrounding waters. I also believe that HL&P, the Army, or the Army Corp of Engineers should foot the total bill for the dredging.

 

What was not addressed in the I-Plan was dredging up the bayou. I believe the Corp of Engineers has approved dredging of the bayou and with more flow of bayou you would have more dilution with the tide coming in and out and that it would help to achieve the goal.

 

The TCEQ and local stakeholders in the Dickinson Bayou watershed have agreed to work together to reduce bacteria pollution in Dickinson Bayou and its tributaries, as described in the I-Plan document. At the same time, stakeholders in the watershed are continuing to explore ways to decrease the effects of pollution on Dickinson Bayou. The TCEQ does not have regulatory authority to compel private or public entities to dredge Texas waterways to improve flow. No changes were made to the I-Plan based on this comment.

 


 

AS I SAID before, and I will keep saying ;

 

*** Until Dickinson Bayou is dredged out and all the way to the ship channel so Dickinson Bayou can breath again, anything else in my opinion will be futile, until the Bayou can flush itself properly. ...

 

Workshop to look at efforts to protect, improve Dickinson Bayou

 

By Annette Baird

 

Updated 1:10 pm, Tuesday, July 14, 2015

 

The almost 23-mile-long Dickinson Bayou with its numerous tributaries, including Gum Bayou, Cedar Creek and associated wetlands play a vital role in the area's ecosystem as well as providing recreational activities such as fishing, canoeing and swimming.

 

*** But the 100-square-mile watershed, from which water flows into Dickinson and Galveston bays, has been tested with unacceptably high levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. ***

 

Livestock, faulty septic systems, agricultural activities, urban run-off and waste from pets and wildlife such as feral hogs have pushed bacteria levels upward, according to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

 

Water-quality experts hope to increase awareness of the pollution and how to reduce it through an upcoming workshop to educate residents, educators and professionals such as geoscientists about what they can do to protect, preserve and restore water quality in the watershed and bayou.

 

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service in cooperation with Clear Creek Independent School District will host the Texas Watershed Steward workshop from 8 a.m. to noon July 21 at Clear Falls High School, 4380 Village Way, in League City.

 

The workshop will include an overview of water quality and watershed management in Texas but will primarily focus on area water quality issues, including current efforts to improve and protect Dickinson Bayou. There will be a discussion of watershed systems, types and sources of water pollution and ways to improve water quality, as well as a group discussion on community-driven watershed protection and management.

 

"We want to educate people about the best management practices," said Michael Kuitu, AgriLife Extension program specialist and coordinator for the TWS program, which is funded through a Clean Water Act grant from the Texas State Soil and Conservation Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Kuitu said pollution from industrial facilities is easier to identify and monitor, whereas pollution from other sources is much more difficult to address.

 

He said the amount of bacteria varies depending on numerous factors such as rainfall levels.

 

"We look at measurements to see how they trend over time," Kuitu said.

 

The workshop is part of a four-day summer training program about awareness of watersheds and wetlands for educators in Clear Creek ISD.

 

Terri Berry, the district's secondary science coordinator, said the workshop aligns with the district's science curriculum and supports what teachers are doing at the district's retention pond and wetlands site, created a few years ago behind Education Village on Village Way.

 

Berry said the training program as a whole will give teachers a deeper understanding of water stewardship so that they can help their students make the most of work with the retention facility and help instill a desire to improve and preserve wetlands areas where they live.

 

"We are trying to create awareness of the watershed and how what you do in your yard and at your house can influence a huge area," Berry said.

 

The free workshop provides an opportunity to earn continuing education credits for professionals, including engineers, certified crop advisers, certified planners, landscape architects, professional geoscientists, Texas Department of Agriculture pesticide license holders, certified teachers, certified floodplain managers and some TCEQ occupational license holders.

 

To register for the workshop, visit tws.tamu.edu/workshops/registration.

 


 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

 

Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria Troubled Waters

 

Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria

 

A current project to survey recreational uses and develop and implement a TMDL to reduce bacteria. The TMDL is completed; the I-Plan is in development.

 

Background and Goals

 

High concentrations of bacteria measured in Dickinson Bayou Tidal, Segment 1103, and four of its tributaries might pose a health risk for people who swim or wade in the bayou. Bacteria from human and animal waste may indicate the presence of disease-causing microorganisms that may cause illness. Swimming and other forms of recreation in which people come into direct contact with the water are referred to as contact recreation in the state's standards for the quality of streams, lakes, and bays.

 

The TMDL project will characterize the sources of bacteria in the watershed of the bayou and develop a plan to improve water quality. The goal of the TMDL is to reduce bacteria concentrations to within acceptable risk levels for contact recreation.

 

The TCEQ will also conduct a recreational use survey and attainability analysis for part of the bayou. Recreational use-attainability analyses (RUAAs) are conducted to determine which of the four recreational use categories is appropriate for a particular water body. During an RUAA project, staff usually collect:

 

Information on a water body, such as the presence or absence of water recreation activities, stream flow type, stream depth Information about the frequency and types of recreation for which the water body is currently used Data on physical conditions in a water body

 

Adopted Total Maximum Daily Loads

 

On February 8, 2012, the commission adopted:

 

Eight Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in Dickinson Bayou and Three Tidal Tributaries (PDF) On June 6, 2012, the EPA approved the TMDLs, at which time they became part of the state’s Water Quality Management Plan. Learn more about the Water Quality Management Plan.

 

Reports

 

Final Technical Support Document

 

Public Participation

 

Stakeholders in the watershed have formed the Dickinson Bayou Watershed Partnership to implement activities that improve water quality in Dickinson Bayou. Information about the Partnership’s meetings is available on their Web site. The TCEQ is working with this existing forum to participate with the public in developing and implementing the TMDL project. Other partners include the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the Galveston Bay Estuary Program, and the Texas Cooperative Extension.

 

Meeting Records, TCEQ-Led Meetings

 


 

Dickinson Bayou Watershed Partnership Meeting Notes 8/24/2011 • Attendees were welcomed and the meeting was brought to order by Charriss York, Texas Coastal Watershed Program (TCWP). • Following introductions of TCWP and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff, a brief background of the Dickinson Bayou Watershed Partnership was given • Charriss York gave a presentation including an update on the Dickinson Bayou Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) progress including an overview of the process for the upcoming public comment period • Ms. York also gave an update to the Bacteria TMDL implementation plan that workgroups have been working on since Febryary. Management measures determine by each of the three work groups (On‐site Sewage Facilities, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, and Animal Sources) and their associated load reductions were discussed.

 

• A copy of Ms. York’s presentation can be found at:

 


 

• Questions/comments were taken throughout the presentation these include: o Partnership members asked that in the future bacteria load reductions be presented in a more meaningful and easy to understand fashion such as representing the bayou as a 55 gallon barrel and pollution loads a portion of that barrel o Questions about septic systems and who is responsible for permitting them in the watershed o Questions about the chemicals used in wastewater treatment facilities and how they impact the bayou o Recommendation to include information about other types of pollution such as pharmaceuticals

 


 

SFR-066/11 January 2012 Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution in Texas: 2011 Annual Report by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board

 

Dickinson Bayou Watershed Protection Plan Implementation Project

 

Dickinson Bayou does not meet water quality standards for DO or pathogen indicator bacteria. The Dickinson Bayou Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) outlines a series of actions for improving the overall health of the watershed and reducing the amount of pollutants entering the Bayou. These actions are based on the vision and goals proposed for the watershed by a broad group of stakeholders representing individual citizens, non-profit and commercial interests, and local, state, and federal governmental entities.

 

For the initial implementation phase of the Dickinson Bayou WPP, the Texas AgriLife Extension Service (AgriLife Extension) proposed short-term implementation measures through a CWA Section 319 grant with the TCEQ. Several on-the-ground demonstrations of site specific BMPs were funded through this grant. This funding helped develop educational workshops for many different groups, NPS-related fact sheets, a pet waste education campaign, lesson plans for teachers, and also provided youth education using watershed models.

 

For on-the-ground implementation, AgriLife Extension worked with Clear Creek School District and City of League City officials on a storm water wetland (four acres) project at the Education Village on FM 96 in the northeast portion of the Dickinson Bayou watershed. AgriLife Extension staff also worked with the City of Dickinson and Keep Dickinson Beautiful to install a rain garden (0.02 acres) and a roof rain catchment cistern (0.03 acres) at the Dickinson Public Library. In addition, AgriLife Extension staff collaborated with representatives from the City of Dickinson to install a new watersmart landscape (0.23 acres) consisting of native trees and shrubs around the new city hall complex. AgriLife Extension staff also partnered with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Dickinson Marine Laboratory to design and install their new watersmart landscape (0.012 acres).

 

The Simple Method for calculating urban storm water loads from the Center for Watershed Protection was used to determine load reduction from these on-the-ground BMPs. Estimated reductions are:

 

Phosphorus 356 lbs

 

Nitrogen 770 lbs

 

SNIP...

 


 


 

see massive flounder kill right off Bacliff shoreline north and south of the old Spillway outlet ;

 


 

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.01.012

 

Copyright © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 

Water quality in the Dickinson Bayou watershed (Texas, Gulf of Mexico) and health issues

 

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

 

Antonietta Quigga, b, , , Linda Broachc, 1, , Winston Dentond, 2, and Roger Mirandae, 3,

 

aDepartment of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University at Galveston, 5007 Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77551, United States

 

bDepartment of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, 3146 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, United States

 

cTexas Commission on Environmental Quality, 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, TX 77023, United States

 

dCoastal Fisheries Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Dickinson Department, 1502 FM 517 East, Dickinson, TX 77539, United States

 

eTexas Commission on Environmental Quality, 1200 Park 35 Circle, Austin, TX 78711, United States

 

Available online 24 February 2009.

 

Abstract

 

The Dickinson Bayou watershed (near Houston, Texas, Gulf of Mexico) provides habitat for numerous coastally influenced communities of wildlife, including scores of birds and fish. Encroaching development and impervious surfaces are altering the habitat and degrading water quality. Herein we have defined the current health of the bayou using water quality data collected between 2000 and 2006. Elevated bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus) and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations (often <3 100="" a="" algal="" are="" assist="" bayou="" be="" because="" blooms="" ca.="" chl="" concerns="" consistent="" development="" div="" ecosystem.="" eutrophication="" findings="" flushing="" g="" has="" impairments="" in="" indicate="" influence="" intrinsic="" is="" l-1="" limited="" low="" magnitude="" major="" may="" mg="" nitrogen="" nutrient="" occur="" of="" often="" on="" persist="" primary="" productivity="" rate.="" ratios="" small="" spring="" study="" summer.="" the="" this="" to="" two="" understanding="" urban="" watersheds.="" which="" while="" will="" with="">
 

Keywords: Bacteria; Ecosystem management; Environmental monitoring; Eutrophication; Low dissolved oxygen; Nitrogen; Nutrients Article Outline 1. Introduction 1.1. Study area 2. Methods 3. Results 3.1. Air temperature and rainfall 3.2. Salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations 3.3. Chlorophyll and nutrients 3.4. Bacteria 4. Discussion Acknowledgements References Fig. 1. The Dickinson Bayou watershed is located within the San Jacinto–Brazos Coastal Basin at 29°29' N, 95°14' W, 45 km southeast of Houston, Texas.

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fig. 2. Average monthly (A) air temperature (°C) and (B) rainfall (cm) in the DBW between 2000 and 2006. Error bars represent standard deviations. (C) Annual rainfall (cm) is subject to cyclic patterns and perturbations due to tropical storms.

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fig. 3. Average water column salinities (‰) measured between 2000 and 2006 from Dickinson Bay (0 km; SH I46) to the upper reach of the tidal portion of Dickinson Bayou. The averages are presented with minimums (lower bars) and maximums (higher bars). A log scale was used to show the range across the bayou.

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fig. 4. Average (24 h) DO concentrations (mg l-1) measured between 2000 and 2006 from Dickinson Bay (0 km; SH I46) to the upper reach of the tidal portion of Dickinson Bayou. (A) Surface DO was typically 6.1 mg l-1 along the length of the bayou with minimum DO’s (bottom bar) ranging from 0.6-2.8 mg l-1 and maximums (top bar) from 7.9–19 mg l-1. (B) DO at >1 m depth was typically 3.5 mg l-1 in the bayou with minimums (bottom bar) ranging from 0.1–1.0 mg l-1 and maximums (top bar) from 8.2–9.8 mg l-1. (C) Exceedances refer to the measurement of instantaneous DO concentrations of 3 mg l-1. The fraction of exceedances in surface (1 m) waters (white bars) was less than those in deep (>1 m) waters (black bars). The greatest fraction of exceedances occurred in the tidal segment of the bayou between Gum Bayou (6.4 km) and Cemetery Road (19.7 km).

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fig. 5. Seasonal patterns in DO concentrations varied as a function of water depth. Surface waters were those at 1 m (A) while deep waters were those at >1 m (B). October to April represent the cool months (white bars) while May to September are the warm months (black bars), respectively.

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fig. 6. Percentage exceedances of fecal coliform measured between 2000 and 2006 from Dickinson Bay (0 km; SH I46) to the above tidal portion of Dickinson Bayou. The main stem of the bayou (white bars) in general, had fewer exceedances than the tributaries (black bars).

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Table 1. Summary of sampling sites visited on a regular basis between 2000 and 2006. The distances inland were calculated relative to Dickinson Bay at SHI46 (see Fig. 1). Segment, latitude, longitude, and a brief description are included for reference. Tributaries are in italics.

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Table 2. Average chlorophyll concentrations (µg l-1) measured between 2000 and 2006 from Dickinson Bay to the upper reach of the tidal region. No data is available for above the tidal reach. Values presented here are the median chlorophyll concentrations (i.e., chl a plus phaeophytin). The range and number of samples (N) examined is also included. Tributaries are in italics.

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Table 3. Total nutrient concentrations (mg l-1) in the water column of Dickinson Bayou, based on a sample size (N), collected between 2000 and 2006. The range (min–max) was included to show the variability. Tributaries are in italics.

 

View Within Article

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Table 4. Bacterial counts in the surface waters of Dickinson Bayou. Minimum and maximum values generally (but not always) reflect the lower and upper detection limits for these tests and so were not included. Rather the % of samples that exceeded the criteria (%E) were included as well as the number of samples (N) measured. Fecal coliform was measured at all stations while Enterococcus was only measured in the tidal segment and E. coli only in the above tidal segment. Tributaries are in italics.

 

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 409 740 4990; fax: +1 409 740 5001. 1 Tel.: +1 713 767 3579. 2 Tel.: +1 281 534 0138. 3 Tel.: +1 512 239 6278. Sponsored Links 24-7 Emergency On Call Water Damage Restoration - Direct Insurance Bill. Call 281-537-8379 AroundDClockRestorationHouston.com

 

www.houstonmosquitosystems.com

 


 

Dickinson Bayou currently does not meet state requirements for aquatic life or contact recreation

 

MAJOR FINDINGS of the study confirmed that salinity, ambient temperature, and rainfall runoff, as well as algal blooms and organic loading influence Dickinson Bayou’s low DO levels.

 

A saltwater wedge (“halocline”) was found extending from Dickinson bay upstream to Cemetery Road.

 

Saltwater tends to encroach more during warmer, drier summer months. Little or no encroachment occurs during the rainy, cooler, winter months. This halocline creates a horizontal barrier between fresh and saltwater layers, preventing movement of DO between the two. Zero DO was frequently measured in the saltwater wedge, while higher DO levels were generally found above that wedge, in the fresher water. The halocline disappeared only during high flow periods following significant rainfall events.

 

Runoff from significant rainfall events contributes to the high bacteria concentrations. Also, higher bacteria levels were found at sampling sites in more rural settings, probably due to greater use of septic systems and rangeland runoff.

 

The Dickinson Bayou watershed is experiencing land use changes as a result of urban, commercial, and rural development. These changes will continue to cause biological, chemical, and physical pressures on the bayou and its ability to absorb and process the increased loading from point and nonpoint source pollution.

 

The TCEQ will use the gathered data and analysis to conduct modeling on the bayou to determine how to proceed with completing a watershed action plan for addressing the low DO occurrence and reducing the bacterial contamination.

 

PROJECT LOCATION

 

Dickinson Bayou is located in southeast Texas in the San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin. The bayou originates north of the City of Alvin in Brazoria County and flows east approximately 24 miles through Galveston County where is drains to Dickinson Bay, a secondary bay of Galveston Bay. Major named tributaries that flow to Dickinson Bayou include Gum Bayou, Benson Bayou, Magnolia (Geisler) Bayou, Bordens Gully, Cedar Creek, and LaFlore’s Bayou.

 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

The study was designed to evaluate water quality over a period of time at several locations along Dickinson Bayou. The project focused on the tidal portion of the bayou, a very sluggish water body dominated by a deep, v-shaped channel with an average depth of 10-15 feet.

 

Data collection devices were deployed at each of nine sites for five consecutive days each month from July 2000 to August of 2001. In addition, water quality samples were taken for laboratory analysis. The U.S. Geological Survey collected supplemental biological data. Data analysis was performed on the resulting data values to form generalized conclusions about the bayou.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Dickinson Bayou is on the state’s list of water bodies not meeting water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) and bacteria levels. As a result, the bayou does not meet its aquatic life use nor its contact recreation use, creating a possible environmental and/ or public health concern. To address these problems, a partnership was formed between the Galveston County Health District (GCHD), the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to conduct a special study.

 

Dickinson Bayou Special Study

 

Dickinson Bayou currently does not meet state requirements for aquatic life or contact recreation Contact Info: Jean Wright, Special Projects Coordinator Galveston County Health District Pollution Control Division

 

1205 Oak Street P.O. Box 939 La Marque, TX 77568 (409) 938-2301 (phone) (409) 938-2271 (fax) Todd Running, Clean Rivers Program Manager Houston-Galveston Area Council 3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77027-6478 (713) 993-4549 (phone) (713) 993-4503 (fax)

 


 

According to the 2005 Galveston Bay Indicators Project, the areas of Galveston Bay with the greatest number of TCEQ criteria-level exceedences for fecal coliform bacteria are Buffalo Bayou, the Houston Ship Channel, Clear Creek, and Dickinson Bayou (Figure 5-60).

 


 

Briefing Paper on Lower Galveston Bay and Bayou Watersheds Lower Bay I: Armand Bayou to Moses Lake and Adjacent Bay Waters Jim Lester, PhD. and Lisa Gonzalez Houston Advanced Research Center Galveston Bay Status and Trends Project Funded by the TCEQ, Galveston Bay Estuary Program

 

July 2005

 

Public Health Issues

 

Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou have levels of fecal coliform bacteria that exceed the screening levels used by TCEQ to determine which water bodies need to be listed as impaired for historical use. Both water bodies would be considered a health risk for contact recreation. The annual average concentrations of fecal coliforms in water samples from both water bodies are shown for 20 years from 1983 to 2002 in the figure below. The level of pollution clearly varies considerably over time. Swimming and other forms of contact recreation should be avoided when the bacterial concentrations in Dickinson Bayou or Clear Creek exceed 400 colony forming units per 100 ml of water.

 

Other locations for contact recreation, such as the Texas City Dike, have no known pollution that would justify avoidance for public health reasons.

 


 

UPDATE OCTOBER 6, 2012

 

WHY THE FISH ARE DYING

 

(Part two in a series by Steve Hoyland Sr. of the Seabreeze News)

 

Galveston Bay Area www.SeabreezeNews.com The voice of the beautiful bayside communities www.seabreezenews.com PH: 281.235.8885

 

Serving: San Leon, Bacliff, Bayview, Dickinson, Texas City, Kemah, League City, Seabrook & Clear Lake Shores

 

October 4, 2012 Why The Fish Are Dying

 

(Part two in a series by Steve Hoyland Sr. of the Seabreeze News)

 

In our last issue, we reported on the massive fish kill in the area along the shore just north of the Spillway in San Leon. While that issue was still being printed I took two experts from an independent laboratory out in my boat to take mud and oxygen samples at the inlet and outlet of the HL&P (Houston Lighting & Power Co.) canal which passes through our scenic little community. The results finally came back from the lab just three days ago, and they are startling. On the HL&P canal inlet side that ties into Dickinson Bayou the chemical oxygen demand (COD) was 368 (normal being 40 or less.) The dissolved oxygen was 0.3. This dissolved oxygen level is so low where Dickinson Bayou and the HL&P canal meet that it cannot sustain any aquatic life. The lab analyst stated, "With the combination of these numbers this water is the equivalent of sewer water." Coincidentally, there are currently five sewage plants that dump into Dickinson Bayou and the HL&P canal. On top of that, Texas City is rumored to have plans to turn the twelve hundred acres of HL&P property into a housing project. They have proposed building a sewage treatment facility on Dickinson Bayou between the inlet canal and the bridge, where it would dump one million gallons of treated sewage into Dickinson Bayou every day. What are they thinking? On the canal outlet at the Spillway, we found the chemical oxygen demand (COD) was 358. The dissolved oxygen level was 2.8. Once again, the water there will not sustain aquatic life. The only good news from the testing we paid for is that there were no heavy metals detected in the mud samples.

 

The HL&P canal was initially dredged in 1972. According to specifications contained in the permit, it was to be 18 feet deep all the way from Galveston Bay to Dickinson Bayou. The same permit contained provisions that Dickinson Bayou was to be dredged out all the way out to the Houston Ship Channel. This was never done, not even one time.

 

This is the specific wording used by the US Army Corps of Engineers in writing to HL&P, before they issued the initial permit which created the canal:

 

"The decision as to where a permit will be issued will be based on an evaluation of the impact of the proposed work on the public interest. Factors affecting the public interest include, but are not limited to, navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, economics, conservation aesthetics, recreation, water supply, flood damage prevention, ecosystems, and in general the needs and welfare of the people."

 

The above was written by the district engineer of the Galveston District, Corp of Engineers. On May 10, 1972, Mr. D. E. Simmons, Vice President of Environmental and Inter-Utility Affairs for Houston Lighting and Power stated in writing to the Corp of Engineers that

 

"continued maintenance is planned." In response, the Corp of Engineers issued a Public Notice on November 9, 1972 announcing plans for the HL&P proposals which included the obligation for the utility company to perform continued maintenance dredging. It was understood and agreed upon that the utility would maintain the canal by periodically dredging it and the adjoining bayou, in order to prevent what has now happened. As stated earlier, no such dredging has ever been performed since that 1972 statement. Due to the fact that the dredging maintenance was never performed, the HL&P canal and Dickinson Bayou have both filled in on the ends. This has caused what is called a ''Hydraulic Effect". Hydraulic Effect on Dickinson Bayou means the bayou is twenty-five to thirty feet deep until it gets close to the bay where it shoals to just six or eight feet. That that the bayou cannot ever flow correctly and get properly flushed out. All of the sediment from runoff collects into the mud of the bayou (ie: fertilizer, pesticides, and the waste from the sewer plants.) If the mouth of this bayou and both sides of the HL&P canal were continually dredged as stipulated in the original permit, this hydraulic effect would not be in play. If the bayou was dredged as stipulated in the permit, the lab analyst said that Dickinson Bayou would healing itself immediately. He said, "Mother Nature will eat up all the black muck with natural bacteria once there is a normal oxygen level and good tidal flow. This applies to the canal as well.

 

Dickinson Bayou and the shoreline can be fixed. It can be a vibrant, aquatic productive estuary once again. Dolphins, alligators, and all manner of wildlife once lived there. The reason our bayou has died is because someone didn't do what they said they were going to do, what they were in fact obligated to do legally.

 

Who is responsible for this major screw-up? I believe it is a combination of HL&P not doing the dredging they agreed to do, and the Army Corps of Engineers not verifying that work was performed. It all has to do with money. We have put all of the documentation on our web site. To see the flounder kill video and copies of the permits and the drawings of the proposed dredging that was never done please visit ; www.SeabreezeNews.com/bayou

 

You do not need to be a subscriber to see this information.

 

A special thanks to Terry Singeltary of Bacliff for all of his help and support. Also, thanks to Texas A&M Galveston Marine Biology Department for their input. We are not finished with our investigation. Look for continued coverage in the next issue of the Seabreeze News. We will be in contact with the Galveston Bay Foundation and their attorney, seeking their knowledge and expertise.

 

We hope to find some way to open up Dickinson Bayou and both sides of the HL&P canal in order to facilitate the healing and restoration of our bayou and shorelines, as was expressly promised in the contract.

 

I have never been a ''tree hugger", but we cannot stand by and allow our coastal waters to be destroyed in the name of the almighty dollar, especially when the solution to the main problem is so simple. If you have any information to share or "comments please write us at the Seabreeze News or send an email to: steve@Seabreezenews.com. Steve Hoyland Sr. www.SeabreezeNews.com Spillway inlet outlet canal Permit 5972 Hwy 146 Bacliff Texas pdf file

 

www.SeabreezeNews.com/bayou

 


 

VIDEO FLOUNDER KILL

 

Galveston County BACLIFF TEXAS FLOUNDER FISH KILL MASSIVE AUGUST 11, 2012

 

see video of massive flounder kill with Seabreeze article September 6, 2012 ;

 

Thousands of Flounder Killed on San Leon Bacliff Shoreline (AGAIN)

 


 


 

additional sources for flounder kill video;

 


 


 

*** SEE HL&P PERMIT ABOUT MAINTAINING A CONSTANT DREDGE FOR DICKINSON BAYOU AND WHY ***

 


 

Saturday, July 18, 2015

 

DICKINSON BAYOU NEEDS TO BE SAVED, NO MORE TREATED OR NON TREATED WATER DISCHARGE PERMITS

 


 


 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 Galveston Bay flounder9@verizon.net

 

SINGELTARY SHORT SUBMISSION

 

CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ

 

RN Number:

 

RN100890235

 

Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 


 

Singeltary Submission;

 

Greetings TCEQ et al,

 

I kindly wish to submit my strong opposition for any permit for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000, to allow any treated or non-treated waste water, or anything else, to be allowed to be discharged into the Dickinson Bayou watershed or nearby locations adjacent to Dickinson Bay, inside of Galveston bay. The Public needs to be able to comment on this, and should. The Dickinson Bayou watershed has been so strained environmentally due to many reasons over the past decades, some reasons include Livestock, Pets, faulty septic systems, agricultural activities, urban run-off and what all that contains, pesticide runoff, waste water treatment plants, just to name a few, but now we have an industrial complex that wants to grow at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, a Bayou that already has studies that show it’s very sluggish in terms of tidal movement, and a Bayou that has consistently been in trouble, year after year after decade. In my opinion, I believe one of the main reasons that causes this, besides all the pollution, is the fact Dickinson Bayou needs to, should have been dredged, with a continuous dredge maintained from inside the mouth, and past the old grave yard, across those flats, on up until Dickinson Bayou gets deep, all the way to the ship channel. The water quality in Dickinson Bayou, has been bad for some time due to little tidal movement. Just very recently, the Houston Chronicle ran an article on a workshop (see below in reference materials) on how to improve Dickinson Bayou due to unacceptably high levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. so why would TCEQ or anyone allow such a permit to throw more fuel to the fire? the old spillway inlet at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, and outlet over on the Bacliff Side, is and has been dead in the water years and years, with no movement through there to help oxygenate the water, we have had numerous fish kills, with one massive flounder kill. why can the ship channel have a continuous life time dredge for the tanker traffic, but yet never dredge Dickinson Bayou, when the Army Corp of Eng said long ago that this needed to be done to maintain a healthy Bayou? what are we waiting on? Via the FOIA, I received the HL&P construction permits back in the 60’s, and the dredging that the Army Corp of engineers said would come and be maintained constantly. That never happened. This constant maintaining of a dredge was to be done all the way to the ship channel, to prevent just what has happened, and it says so in the permit. see permit PDF in my reference materials below. Until Dickinson Bayou is dredged out and all the way to the ship channel so Dickinson Bayou can breath again, anything else in my opinion will be futile. with no changes to the plan to address the issue of dredging Dickinson Bayou to address the tidal flow issues, and proper flushing of Dickinson Bayou, all your going to have is a toilet that does not flush properly, that our children have been playing and swimming in, and consuming the seafood there from. some kind of tourist attraction, welcome to the Toilet Bowl.

 

I strongly protest, and strongly object, in totality, to Permit No.: WQ0004086000 for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ RN Number: RN100890235, please deny this permit. ...

 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas 77518

 

REFERENCE

 

ENFORCEMENT FOR CLEAN HARBORS

 

Item 35

 

Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E.

 

Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

 


 


 

Item 35 Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (Jessica Schildwachter, Candy Garrett) Approve the Agreed Order. ZC/TB; all agree.

 


 


 

An agreed order was entered regarding Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc., Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E on April 1, 2015, assessing $234 in administrative penalties with $234 deferred.

 


 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. previous comment

 

Response to Public Comments Eight TMDLs for Indicator Bacteria in Dickinson Bayou and Three Tidal Tributaries (Segments 1103 and 1104)

 

November 12, 2013

 

Terry Singeltary (written)

 

The TCEQ efforts to bring back quality water, instead of polluted water to the Dickinson Bayou and its Tributaries, are greatly appreciated. However, I think it all will be futile, if Dickinson Bayou is not dredged out to where the water can flow freely with the tidal movements. I believe that due to Dickinson Bayou not being dredged and maintained properly, to allow for a maximum flow, by Houston Lighting and Power Co. (HL&P) is/was a cause to a great many of our problems in Dickinson Bayou, and surrounding waters. I also believe that HL&P, the Army, or the Army Corp of Engineers should foot the total bill for the dredging.

 

The TCEQ and local stakeholders in the Dickinson Bayou watershed have agreed to work together to reduce bacteria pollution in Dickinson Bayou and its tributaries, as described in the I-Plan document. At the same time, stakeholders in the watershed are continuing to explore ways to decrease the effects of pollution on Dickinson Bayou. The TCEQ does not have regulatory authority to compel private or public entities to dredge Texas waterways to improve flow. No changes were made to the I-Plan based on this comment.

 


 

Workshop to look at efforts to protect, improve Dickinson Bayou

 

By Annette Baird

 

Updated 1:10 pm, Tuesday, July 14, 2015

 

*** But the 100-square-mile watershed, from which water flows into Dickinson and Galveston bays, has been tested with unacceptably high levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. ***

 


 

High concentrations of bacteria measured in Dickinson Bayou Tidal, Segment 1103, and four of its tributaries might pose a health risk for people who swim or wade in the bayou. Bacteria from human and animal waste may indicate the presence of disease-causing microorganisms that may cause illness.

 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/80-dickinsonbayoubacteria.html Dickinson Bayou does not meet water quality standards for DO or pathogen indicator bacteria.

 


 


 

*** Elevated bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus) and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations (often <3 100="" a="" algal="" are="" bayou="" be="" because="" blooms="" ca.="" chl="" concerns="" consistent="" div="" ecosystem.="" eutrophication="" flushing="" g="" has="" impairments="" in="" indicate="" intrinsic="" is="" l-1="" limited="" low="" magnitude="" major="" may="" mg="" nitrogen="" nutrient="" occur="" of="" often="" persist="" primary="" productivity="" rate.="" ratios="" spring="" summer.="" the="" this="" to="" two="" which="" while="" with="">
 


 

Dickinson Bayou Special Study

 

Dickinson Bayou currently does not meet state requirements for aquatic life or contact recreation

 


 

According to the 2005 Galveston Bay Indicators Project, the areas of Galveston Bay with the greatest number of TCEQ criteria-level exceedences for fecal coliform bacteria are Buffalo Bayou, the Houston Ship Channel, Clear Creek, and Dickinson Bayou (Figure 5-60).

 


 

July 2005

 

Public Health Issues

 

Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou have levels of fecal coliform bacteria that exceed the screening levels used by TCEQ to determine which water bodies need to be listed as impaired for historical use. Both water bodies would be considered a health risk for contact recreation.

 


 

*** SEE HL&P PERMIT ABOUT MAINTAINING A CONSTANT DREDGE FOR DICKINSON BAYOU AND WHY ***

 


 

Saturday, July 18, 2015

 

DICKINSON BAYOU NEEDS TO BE SAVED, NO MORE TREATED OR NON TREATED WATER DISCHARGE PERMITS

 


 


 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 Galveston Bay flounder9@verizon.net

 

Thank you for submitting your comments on this pending permit application. Thank you for submitting your comments on this pending permit application. You will receive an e-mail confirmation of your comments that you can print for your records.

 

*If you do not receive an e-mail confirmation within one hour, we HAVE NOT received your comments.

 

If you do not receive confirmation, please be sure to contact the Office of the Chief Clerk immediately at 512-239-3300. Please note, successfully submitting your comments online does not guarantee you filed them timely.

 


 

 From: donotreply@tceq.texas.gov Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:57 PM To: flounder9@verizon.net Subject: TCEQ Confirmation: Your public comment on Permit Number WQ0004086000 was received.

 

SNIP...END...TSS

 

*** ANOTHER ATTACH ON DICKINSON BAYOU ***

 


 

 

 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

 

 

 

Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria Troubled Waters

 

 

 

Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, August 11, 2012

 

 

 

Galveston County BACLIFF TEXAS FLOUNDER FISH KILL MASSIVE AUGUST 11, 2012

 

 

 

(see video of the dead flounder floating)

 

 

 


 

 

 

re-Prop-6, fresh water, and Galveston Bay,

 

THE very reason why I voted NO for Prop 6. just another slush fund for the state. Galveston Bay can take no more abuse. IF it’s not the constant dredging and the islands of toxic dredge materials there from popping up every where not bad enough for the Galveston Bay waters, due to industry, now we have the Texas Water Development Board and Prop 6 slush fund that will be bought off to the highest bidder via lobbying from the farming industry, the rice farmers, to livestock industry, to city’s that just about loose more water than they contain and use, and that’s just a few off the top of my head. the Texas water board is no different than anybody else, there pockets can be picked clean like any other group, by politicians, industry, and lobbyist there from. it’s bad enough that Texas is a nuclear dumping ground for 38 states thanks to Rick Perry and his friends, it’s bad enough the air we breath is barely breathable thanks to Rick Perry and his corporate buddies, but now we are going to risk our beloved Galveston Bay, again, by risking the natural influx of fresh water into Galveston bay, to the highest bidder. I have spoken with folks in the seafood industry, and the restrictions they claim already on the influx of fresh water into Galveston Bay is already hurting shrimp, oysters, and other sea life in Galveston bay. she can’t take any more abuse from man, and that’s all she will get from Austin with this Prop 6, that everyone was fooled into voting for.

 

nothing nor nobody (except God), should be a top priority over any change, that would be detrimental in water influx into Galveston Bay, or any other bay in Texas, nobody. ...

 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Galveston Bay

 

 Saturday, November 16, 2013

 

Bad Prop. 6 spending could harm Galveston Bay: Groups

 


 

Saturday, March 22, 2014

 

Barge and Ship Collide off Texas City oil leaking into Galveston Bay

 

SEE UPDATES THROUGHOUT THIS BLOG DOWN BELOW...

 


 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

 

Galveston Bay Oil Spill and the IKE dike VS Rice dike

 


 


 

 Hazardous materials workers began the laborious process of flushing a stagnant segment of Buffalo Bayou's Newman Branch on Friday after it was contaminated by raw sewage, possibly flowing from a broken pipe.

 

Most heavily contaminated was a section of the waterway between Interstate 10 and Memorial Drive.

 

Investigators from the city health department and other agencies arrived at the scene early Friday afternoon after nearby residents complained of the stench. The process of flushing the bayou with water from fire hydrants began at midafternoon.

 

Today, hazardous material workers plan to siphon scum from atop the water at a collection point set up with booms near the Memorial bridge.

 

Stephen Dicker, an investigator with Houston Police Department's environmental crimes unit, said workers trying to identify the source of the leak were hampered by the uncertainty of the location of underground sewer pipes.

 

Newman Branch flows north to south just east of Antoine. North of I-10, the branch is contained in storm sewers, Dicker said.

 

Houston oilman Dewey Stringer, who lives near the point where the bayou passes Memorial, said similar pollution has periodically plagued the waterway for at least five years. Generally, however, heavy rainfall dilutes the contamination.

 

Stringer, who was among residents to report the pollution to authorities, said the odor was so severe that he and his wife found it difficult to sleep. He had planned to relocate to Galveston this weekend and commute to work.

 

Stringer said he has developed eye irritation from vapors rising from the bayou and both he and his wife have developed persistent coughs.

 

In the past, Stringer said official response to pollution incidents had been lackadaisical.

 

Thursday night, he said, he began telephoning federal, state, county and city agencies he thought might have jurisdiction in the matter.

 

"No one is saying that there isn't a problem today," he said as investigators scurried along the bayou bank at his home. "They're all running around with red eyes."

 

While complete water sample test results were not available Friday, preliminary tests indicated the water's oxygen level was far below the level needed to sustain aquatic life.

 

Investigators have seen no signs of a fish kill, Dicker said.

 

At the point where Newman Branch passes Stringer's house, the water Friday afternoon was a metallic black, covered by thick pads of ivory-colored scum. Stringer said the bayou had been in that condition about a month.

 

Dicker said he has investigated previous pollution cases at Newman Branch — one involving dumping chemicals from a paint factory and one from construction runoff.

 

"This is the first time we've had apparent sewage pollution," he said.

 

Dicker said his investigation is complicated by the presence of both city and subdivision sewer systems in the area.

 

allan.turner@chron.com

 


 

In fact, much of Buffalo Bayou is tidal. Spartina alterniflora, the salt marsh plant in the low-tidal zone, seems to cut off upstream of the connection with the San Jacinto, up closer to around Jensen/Runnels street. I’m not sure if that’s due to the change in salinity or the abrupt change in topography there (from more flat estuarine-like along the edges to a deeper, narrow channel)

 

Further up the bayou, I have witnessed a dolphin at the intersection of White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou, as several newspapers described back in the 90’s; there are certainly small alligators and big fish as far upstream as it goes. FYI, there’s also a lot of submerged junk there, too.

 

There is flow to Buffalo Bayou, it is regulated by a dam up near Addick’s Reserviour, they can make it fast enough to make canoe races entertaining as evidenced by the Buffalo Bayou Partnership’s annual race. I don’t know of any spring-fed flow, I would find that very strange for this bayou in particular. Ground water certainly is a major contributor from adjacent urban areas, and major rains can cause a massive fish kill, I have an old picture of one if anyone’s interested. I don’t know the name, but some folks at the University of Houston - Downtown have done a little work on that.

 

One can see evidence of flow from floods in the trees: there are characteristic water lines formed by trash hanging from the high points among the branches.I would say that historically, Buffalo Bayou probably drained the Katy Prairie, which should be somewhat more wet than it is today. Today, it drains Addick’s. Also, the areas adjacent to the Bayou were and are drained as well.

 

In conclusion, there is flow generally towards Galveston Bay, but sometimes it reverses due to high tides and southeast winds, particularly in the summer. Thus, it is a brackish connection between the fresh upper reaches, and the lower saline/brackish estuary.

 


 

The Port of Houston faces the ongoing challenge of floating debris deposited into Buffalo Bayou and floating into the Turning Basin and Galveston Bay.

 


 

does that include floating turds. ...

 

still disgusted in sunny, hot, baycliff texas, where Houston still flushes turds into Galveston bay (at-a-boy mayor), and where you cannot eat the fish and crabs due to the PCBs and other deadly toxins, and where the deadly flesh eating bacteria Vibrio vulnificus lives, come on down. ...TSS

 


 


 

 

 

TSS